All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm
All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
I say now that all of this is an infinite regressing phenomena that covers no ground, precisely because there was no ground to cover in the first place. I am well aware that this is exceedingly radical, but I'm going to write a few of my insights as if they are "laws":
1. All definitions are not definite
2. All ideas are assumptions
3. All ideas are beliefs
4. All ideas refer to themselves and only themselves. Ideas exist in relation to other ideas.
5. Following premise 4, ideas are all relative.
6. All ideas can be questioned in an infinitely regressing fashion.
7. All ideas are fundamentally groundless.
To notice this for ones self, you have to question whether or not you "know" anything at all. What is "knowing"? Since now we are in no man's land, I can only say intuitions about that the "truth" is. Firstly, truth cannot be a belief. Which makes me conclude that truth cannot be an "idea". Since, in this formulation, all ideas are assumptions, beliefs that ultimately cover nothing. Many of you can probably point out contradictions or paradoxes from everything that I've said up until now. But what I'm saying is that paradox/contradiction is inherent to the nature of "meaning" and "definitions" and ultimately, ideas.
Let's try to define one term (I am going to use a definition from Wikipedia on this one):
Objectivity -it is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
Surely, most of us have an understanding of what all these words mean: "Objective, truth, independent, individual, subjectivity, bias, causation, perception, emotion, imagination". But interestingly, once any of these words is questioned, there is the birthplace of a philosophical debate. But then a philosopher says: "You must define truth!", another exclaims: "Easy, truth is the state of affair of things". That does not say anything at all!, says another philosopher. What are the "state of affairs of things" then? "States of affairs are things that are real!" But what is something real? And so on...
To not further elongate on this example, the implication is that all words in all definitions can be further elaborated to infinity. This means anytime we set boundaries to a definition, this "boundary" is arbitrary. All definitions are not definite because the boundary of a "definition" is almost set by us unconsciously. To the extent that a philosophical discourse can emerge from any given thought, it is the ability to "notice" or be "aware" of the limitations of any given concept. This is the phenomena of "taking things for granted", which is another form of assumption. This is the notion of Derrida that meaning is within the context, and to define a word you must necessarily define all words in the dictionary. It's an infinite circularity, the ouroboros that eats it's own tail.
"Understanding" itself is now a very mysterious phenomena. Does understanding a concept require that it be truthful? Surely not with everything I have established. Does the "feeling" when a conception "makes sense" rationally, and it's consistency, mean that given idea/conception is true? I can create many worldviews, many models, many theories of everything. And yet, "the map is not the territory". Is the territory the "thing in itself" as conceptualized by Kant, or is the thing in itself just another layer of infinitely tied fabrications of ideas, language and the mind? There is no ground but a fabricated one.
Science cannot be proven by science. Logic cannot be proven by logic (Godel's incompleteness theorem). What is proof even? This is a fancy way of just saying that assumptions cannot be proven by other assumptions. Then what is behind the assumption, behind the big bang? Where does it end?
Is truth provability? Truth should not require defense. But how do I know that?, I don't I can only assume. Truth seems to lie on the realm of the "a priori", on whatever philosophers mean when we speak of "intrinsic", "in-itself", "self-evident", "inherent", "innate", "elemental", "fundamental", "unconditional", etc.
Whatever this discussion may spark in our minds I just want to say one thing: let's continuously inquire on the nature of an assumption, always.
It is the only starting point I can conceive in a world with no starting point. Yes, very paradoxical.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
That's not about whether anything is an assumption, a belief, etc.
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
I tend to agree with most of your ideas (ideas!).
However I find these two ideas problematic:
Why?
Because I feel that the difference between "assumptions" and "beliefs" needs to be specified to avoid redundancy. From the context of your post I would conclude that idea #2 shall mean "All ideas are assumptions [of truth(s)]" and idea #3 shall mean "All ideas are beliefs [that cannot be proven to be true]". Is this your understanding of these two ideas?
Anyway I think that ideas are not necessarily 'assumptions of truth(s)' because I can entertain ideas without assuming them to be true, i.e. I can entertain ideas playfully or as [working] hypotheses.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
What do you mean by the word "idea"?Tosen wrote:1. All definitions are not definite
2. All ideas are assumptions
3. All ideas are beliefs
4. All ideas refer to themselves and only themselves. Ideas exist in relation to other ideas.
5. Following premise 4, ideas are all relative.
6. All ideas can be questioned in an infinitely regressing fashion.
7. All ideas are fundamentally groundless.
To me, one use is: A thought about how to solve a problem. As in:
"Hang on lads, I've got a great idea."
(Michael Caine, The Italian Job)
Not many of your above laws make any sense when using it that way.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
In this, your introduction, you are commenting on language and its shortcomings, I think. Fair enough, it is obvious that language is an imperfect tool. But I also think it's pretty good as it is. Language developed by evolution, more or less, and it has all the pros and cons of things created in that way. But I think the search for a better communications tool is missing the point. Language is as good as it's ever going to be, in practice.Tosen wrote: ↑September 14th, 2021, 2:48 pm Philosophers of all kinds and flavors, and especially from the analytic tradition, vouch for being epistemologically rigorous because of the tricky nature of language and the mind. We must always be clear and "concise" in our language, so that philosophical discourse makes sense and the thoughts we converse about actually point to existing/comprehensible things in reality. But that begs the question of who defines what "existing/comprehensible" things are.
I say now that all of this is an infinite regressing phenomena that covers no ground, precisely because there was no ground to cover in the first place. I am well aware that this is exceedingly radical, but I'm going to write a few of my insights as if they are "laws":
1. All definitions are not definite
If we had a precise and clearly defined term for everything - an impossible aim in itself - the typical English speaker might need a vocabulary of millions of words. As we currently have vocabularies of 20,000 words or so, we can see how unattainable that would be. And if we are to have the perfect word at our fingertips always, maybe even millions of words would not be enough?
So we attach multiple meanings to individual words, and many of these meanings are only generally defined and understood. In this way, we make language a usable tool, despite the imprecision (etc) that it brings with it. On the whole, I like our language as it is, and see the aim of 'improving' it as something of a waste of time. YMMV, of course.
P.S. Thanks for an interesting topic to think about...
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
Some of these are self refutingTosen wrote: ↑September 14th, 2021, 2:48 pm Philosophers of all kinds and flavors, and especially from the analytic tradition, vouch for being epistemologically rigorous because of the tricky nature of language and the mind. We must always be clear and "concise" in our language, so that philosophical discourse makes sense and the thoughts we converse about actually point to existing/comprehensible things in reality. But that begs the question of who defines what "existing/comprehensible" things are.
I say now that all of this is an infinite regressing phenomena that covers no ground, precisely because there was no ground to cover in the first place. I am well aware that this is exceedingly radical, but I'm going to write a few of my insights as if they are "laws":
1. All definitions are not definite
2. All ideas are assumptions
3. All ideas are beliefs
4. All ideas refer to themselves and only themselves. Ideas exist in relation to other ideas.
5. Following premise 4, ideas are all relative.
6. All ideas can be questioned in an infinitely regressing fashion.
7. All ideas are fundamentally groundless.
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am
Re: All definition are not definite; paradoxical nature of definitions
Your last idea assumption would make all your idea formulations equally groundless. There are "ideas" which fit all your definitions and some that don't fit any.Tosen wrote: ↑September 14th, 2021, 2:48 pm
1. All definitions are not definite
2. All ideas are assumptions
3. All ideas are beliefs
4. All ideas refer to themselves and only themselves. Ideas exist in relation to other ideas.
5. Following premise 4, ideas are all relative.
6. All ideas can be questioned in an infinitely regressing fashion.
7. All ideas are fundamentally groundless.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023